Ha ha ha! Oh gosh that's funny! That's really funny! Do you write your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. Blaming "Dubya" for evertying. You know, I've, I've never heard anyone make that joke before. Hmm. You're the first. I've never heard anyone reference, reference the president before. Because that's what everyone says right? Isn't it? Dubya's stupid. And, and yet you've taken that and used it out of context to insult him in this everyday situation. God what a clever, smart person you must be, to come up with a joke like that all by yourself. That's so fresh too. Any, any Dick Cheney jokes you want to throw at me too as long as we're hitting these phenomena at the height of their popularity. God you're so funny!
Last I checked, farmers don't research pest control. They just buy the products they know works. I'm sure if somebody introduced another form of pest control that was as cheap (or cheaper) they would buy it too.
I too was quite intrigued by the Green stance on elections. Makes quite a bit of sense to me, and I too feel there is too much private money supporting polititians. It's too bad the rest of their stance is nutty (but I may be racist, I *am* white afterall...).
Perhaps some combination? Keep the electoral college, but each state uses IRV rather than their current systems. This wouldn't even require a change to the US constitution, but it would require all 50 states to agree to change...
If it were easy to remove somebody from office (whom you voted *in* just a few years earlier remember), then it's quite possible we'd never have a stable government.
Also, rememeber: Not all of use feel the way you do about President Bush.
As of now, they can reisntate the draft like the want to, introduce draconian Big Brother type laws, punish pirates as terrorists, etc, and nothing can be done about it.
Because nobody could do it before? Can and do are very different things.
Most information is timely - after a few years, it just doesn't matter in any practical terms.
Perhaps if it's a one time thing, but what if nation B has been feeding nation A information for years? And if nation C knew that, then there would/could be a *lot* of trouble for nation B?
The situation can also be akin to a reporter reveiling a source. After they have done so, they can kiss that (and any other) source goodbye.
I will agree that *eventually* that information must be made free. I just disagree tha the timescale is easily determined and can be applied the same in all circumstances.
Yeah, the difference is slight, isn't it... The problem is, trolls have gotten very good at disguising themselves, and make their posts look like normal opinionated pots.
I've taken the mods troll and flamebait to be nearly synonymous now... *shrug*
In my opinion sir, you have your head shoved so far up your ass it would take a medical doctor to remove it. I also question your sexual preference, and the sexual promiscuity of your mother.
Claiming this is an 'opinion' makes it no less a troll or flamebait.
Yes. The difference (I believe) being that they will now need to convince a judge that they need to, and can be held accountable. No "fishing" in other words.
See, I can't find a source (just heard it on the radio while driving home). I *think* they said it had been passed, but was awaiting somebody to do something (not waiting to be signed though - they aren't waiting on Mitt).
Which is why one can't simply vote along party lines. The actual candidates themselves must be considered. Within each party there are vast differences, but with some 'core' values. Christ, a Democrat had a keynote at the RNC!
Most people fail to see that the parties are malleable. I'm guessing it's because a lot of folks here are young, and don't know history...
The democrats today are *not* the party that they were even when Kennedy was president! And the parties will continue to change as their members change. The third/forth/etc. parties serve to show where the 'extremists' are IMHO. The bigger the Green party gets, I'd be the more liberal the Democrats get. And the bigger the Libertarians get, the more Libertarian the Republicans would get. But since we've only got two parties, neither will stray very far from each other. Extremists are rarely popular.
Not that there are exceptions (witness the civil war, Hitler, etc.), but they aren't common (and the civil war was mostly because the 'lines' were drawn on geographic terms [North v. South] as well as political ones).
We have had other parties in the past BTW, but basically we've always had 2 parties.
What you're describing is basically a Catch-22 situation. The 2-party system has to be changed before someone not in one of the two major political parties can win, but the system won't change unless something major happens to shake it up... like a third-party candidate winning.
Sorta. In the past typically one party becomes very un-popular (federalists, whigs, etc.), and the other party sorta takes over. Then that party fractures into two parties. Lather, rinse, repeat. Though we have had the current parties for some time, and they are still pretty evenly-split, so it's doubtful that any other party will really have a chance.
What I *do* see as a use for the third/forth/fifth/etc. parties, is that they are a sort of test as to what the non-two party affiliated folks are thinking. For instance, the Democratic party can look to the green party members as sort of it's "far left", and gauge whether that's the direction the party may need to move in (or away from). Should the Green party start to gain momentum, I'd bet the Democrats would start picking up some of their platform (and similar for Republicans and Libertarians).
I can't find any links, but I'd heard it on the radio (WRKO). Apparently the current law only covers recording of *audio*, and so long as you don't record audio (just video) then you're within your rights. There is a bill that I believe has been passed, but not yet adopted, to correct this...
It was recently discovered in Massachusetts that so long as no sound is recorded, it was perfectly legal to video tape somebody. There was a case recently where an offender was found 'not guilty' in a case like this. I don't have any links at the moment (heard about it on the radio), but there is a bill that's going through the local govt to correct this oversight.
Different states have different laws on this... For instance, in Massachusetts so long as they weren't recording *sound*, then it's perfectly legal (yes, believe it or not!).
We *are* trying to fix this little loop-hole, but legislation has tied the bill up for a bit...
I'd much rather have a President that uses his time for personal and intellectual diversions rather than one that chokes on a pretzel while watching some mass-market crap aired on that most Republican of channels, Fox.
But what do you say to the families of those who died?
Not to sound harsh, but the military is still a volunteer organization... And I don't know what civilian doesn't know that Iraq is a dangerous place at the moment. WTF are you doing over there if you're not prepared to risk your life?
However, any death is bad, yadda yadda. It would be nice if the whole thing could have been settled over crumpetts and tea, but that just wasn't an option...
Slashdot Mirror
Ha ha ha! Oh gosh that's funny! That's really funny! Do you write your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. Blaming "Dubya" for evertying. You know, I've, I've never heard anyone make that joke before. Hmm. You're the first. I've never heard anyone reference, reference the president before. Because that's what everyone says right? Isn't it? Dubya's stupid. And, and yet you've taken that and used it out of context to insult him in this everyday situation. God what a clever, smart person you must be, to come up with a joke like that all by yourself. That's so fresh too. Any, any Dick Cheney jokes you want to throw at me too as long as we're hitting these phenomena at the height of their popularity. God you're so funny!
Last I checked, farmers don't research pest control. They just buy the products they know works. I'm sure if somebody introduced another form of pest control that was as cheap (or cheaper) they would buy it too.
Bra-vo. :-)
I too was quite intrigued by the Green stance on elections. Makes quite a bit of sense to me, and I too feel there is too much private money supporting polititians. It's too bad the rest of their stance is nutty (but I may be racist, I *am* white afterall...).
Perhaps some combination? Keep the electoral college, but each state uses IRV rather than their current systems. This wouldn't even require a change to the US constitution, but it would require all 50 states to agree to change...
If it were easy to remove somebody from office (whom you voted *in* just a few years earlier remember), then it's quite possible we'd never have a stable government.
Also, rememeber: Not all of use feel the way you do about President Bush.
As of now, they can reisntate the draft like the want to, introduce draconian Big Brother type laws, punish pirates as terrorists, etc, and nothing can be done about it.
Because nobody could do it before? Can and do are very different things.
If it's anonymous, how do you know each link goes across international borders?
Most information is timely - after a few years, it just doesn't matter in any practical terms.
Perhaps if it's a one time thing, but what if nation B has been feeding nation A information for years? And if nation C knew that, then there would/could be a *lot* of trouble for nation B?
The situation can also be akin to a reporter reveiling a source. After they have done so, they can kiss that (and any other) source goodbye.
I will agree that *eventually* that information must be made free. I just disagree tha the timescale is easily determined and can be applied the same in all circumstances.
Who'd have thought an editorial would be biased?
p -7930186c.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/story/1686331
And some people are just assholes. Guess which are more likely to be making jokes on slashdot?
Wow, if I reported it *now* I could beat them both!
Sorry, couldn't resist...
Yeah, the difference is slight, isn't it... The problem is, trolls have gotten very good at disguising themselves, and make their posts look like normal opinionated pots.
I've taken the mods troll and flamebait to be nearly synonymous now... *shrug*
In my opinion sir, you have your head shoved so far up your ass it would take a medical doctor to remove it. I also question your sexual preference, and the sexual promiscuity of your mother.
Claiming this is an 'opinion' makes it no less a troll or flamebait.
Yes. The difference (I believe) being that they will now need to convince a judge that they need to, and can be held accountable. No "fishing" in other words.
Think I found it.
http://www.mass.gov/legis/history/s02464.htm
Which is a revised version of:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/history/s00177.htm
Sounds like it's gone to the Steering committee. Guess it hasn't been passed yet...
See, I can't find a source (just heard it on the radio while driving home). I *think* they said it had been passed, but was awaiting somebody to do something (not waiting to be signed though - they aren't waiting on Mitt).
*shrug* If I find anything I'll post it...
Which is why one can't simply vote along party lines. The actual candidates themselves must be considered. Within each party there are vast differences, but with some 'core' values. Christ, a Democrat had a keynote at the RNC!
The people get lost in the labels.
Ahh, somebody else who sees it like I do.
Most people fail to see that the parties are malleable. I'm guessing it's because a lot of folks here are young, and don't know history...
The democrats today are *not* the party that they were even when Kennedy was president! And the parties will continue to change as their members change. The third/forth/etc. parties serve to show where the 'extremists' are IMHO. The bigger the Green party gets, I'd be the more liberal the Democrats get. And the bigger the Libertarians get, the more Libertarian the Republicans would get. But since we've only got two parties, neither will stray very far from each other. Extremists are rarely popular.
Not that there are exceptions (witness the civil war, Hitler, etc.), but they aren't common (and the civil war was mostly because the 'lines' were drawn on geographic terms [North v. South] as well as political ones).
We have had other parties in the past BTW, but basically we've always had 2 parties.
... like a third-party candidate winning.
What you're describing is basically a Catch-22 situation. The 2-party system has to be changed before someone not in one of the two major political parties can win, but the system won't change unless something major happens to shake it up
Sorta. In the past typically one party becomes very un-popular (federalists, whigs, etc.), and the other party sorta takes over. Then that party fractures into two parties. Lather, rinse, repeat. Though we have had the current parties for some time, and they are still pretty evenly-split, so it's doubtful that any other party will really have a chance.
What I *do* see as a use for the third/forth/fifth/etc. parties, is that they are a sort of test as to what the non-two party affiliated folks are thinking. For instance, the Democratic party can look to the green party members as sort of it's "far left", and gauge whether that's the direction the party may need to move in (or away from). Should the Green party start to gain momentum, I'd bet the Democrats would start picking up some of their platform (and similar for Republicans and Libertarians).
Just a thought...
I can't find any links, but I'd heard it on the radio (WRKO). Apparently the current law only covers recording of *audio*, and so long as you don't record audio (just video) then you're within your rights. There is a bill that I believe has been passed, but not yet adopted, to correct this...
It was recently discovered in Massachusetts that so long as no sound is recorded, it was perfectly legal to video tape somebody. There was a case recently where an offender was found 'not guilty' in a case like this. I don't have any links at the moment (heard about it on the radio), but there is a bill that's going through the local govt to correct this oversight.
"We" is the voters in the state and the legislation. AFAIK the bill has been passed, but is tied up in some committee...
Different states have different laws on this... For instance, in Massachusetts so long as they weren't recording *sound*, then it's perfectly legal (yes, believe it or not!).
We *are* trying to fix this little loop-hole, but legislation has tied the bill up for a bit...
I'd much rather have a President that uses his time for personal and intellectual diversions rather than one that chokes on a pretzel while watching some mass-market crap aired on that most Republican of channels, Fox.
Like sail-boarding and cruising on a yacht?
But what do you say to the families of those who died?
Not to sound harsh, but the military is still a volunteer organization... And I don't know what civilian doesn't know that Iraq is a dangerous place at the moment. WTF are you doing over there if you're not prepared to risk your life?
However, any death is bad, yadda yadda. It would be nice if the whole thing could have been settled over crumpetts and tea, but that just wasn't an option...